Dudley Vs Stephens

I think a Natural Law School follower would have found the men not guilty of murder. Again this is based upon the reading, back story,

The main argument the defense is planning to use is that the Marines standing trial were executing an order in which they didn't think would result in harm. In his opening statement to the jury of nine, Capt. Ross drives the facts of the case into the jury. This would seem normal because for the prosecution, this case is based heavily on facts. The facts are that one Marine is dead, and two other are standing trial for his death. The defense's rebuttal points out that the actions carried out by the Marines were orders by their commanding officer.

Late one night Perry Smith and Dick Hickock brutally murdered Nancy, Kenyon, Bonnie, and Herbert Clutter . Smith and Hickock's crime resulted in so much pain and grief for those affected. They stole and killed with no remorse. I believe that Perry Smith and Dick Hickock should be put to death for this heartless crime.

of the brutal slayings. It was concluded that both should be tried in an adult

They were found guilty for murder. And finally they were hung, for a murder and a robbery with a profit of $50. The execution takes place at January the 14th; ‘the Kansas Supreme Court decreed that their lives must end between midnight and 2: 00 a. m., Wednesday, April 14, 1965.’

Hello, Jury i'm here to prove to you Johnny Cade is guilty for the murder of Robert Sheldon. On a Saturday night at 2:30 am Johnny and his close friend Pony-boy Curtis state that they were at the park when Robert and his 5 other friends came to their “territory” drunk. That's when one of Robert’s friend David gets Pony-boy and started drowning him by a water fountain nearby the park. Then, Pony-boy was about to drown when Johnny comes from the back and stabs Robert and that's when Robert’s friends saw and left running. So, Jury the thing that i did not understand is why did Johnny stab Robert if he want the one drowning Pony-boy?

I believe Dudley acted ethically in his suggestion for drawing of lots. I arrive at this conclusion because this method of selection gives each of the four individuals an equal and fair chance. No one member of the crew is being singled out or treated unequally.

The appropriate measure of punishment to be imposed on Thomas Dudley and Edward Stephens is hard to pinpoint; simply meaning, that if their punishment were to be based on retributive justification, Dudley and Stephens would be put to death. However, because there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the death of Seaman Richard Parker, the punishment would not be as harsh as it should be for committing murder. Otherwise, for Stephens and Dudley, the death penalty should be sought to avenge the death of Richard Parker and the devouring of his flesh. Therefore, I would impose incapacitation through incarceration.

As individuals, we have different morals that can cause us to have a different opinion about things in life. Morals can be defined as having different beliefs when it comes to right and wrong. For instance, what one may consider unjust, another can consider the actions just. In the case of The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens,1884 it illustrates how individuals face different dilemmas that caused them to sacrifice a life for their well-being. I disagree with murdering the boy because I feel that people we should go right and do unto others, you will want them to do to you.

Feedback to the Mr. Smith case: I still come back to the idea of the circumstantial evince and that the prosecution should try the case in court or offer him a better plea for the victims. Yes, resources are better used if the case is pleaded out, but I still believe you cannot over look how many homes he burglarized. I believe a pattern has evolved and he could be more dangerous than perceived. I would agree that if Mr. Smith had something to offer, the plea deal for guilty on two counts could be fine. It all comes down to how many homes he burglarized. Twenty is a lot and shows more than I believe is being taken into account. To Jimmy and the mob bosses, I agree with the statement that the government is at fault for not finding evidence to convict higher up mob bosses and giving Jimmy immunity. If the government cannot put together a case against the mob bosses without giving immunity to a killer, than the mob bosses haven’t done anything illegal or they are so good at what they do, they do not leave a trace. Why believe a killer? He is probably going to say anything to save

irretrievably depraved character” (Roper v. Simmons, 2005). It also defends about whether or not the death

No man shall kill another, and not suffer. Dudley and Stephens willingly chose to kill Parker, and they should have to pay the price for taking an innocent life. God is the only one that has judgment over another man, and by killing him innocently, they acted as a god. If they believed in God, as it says in John 3:18, then they would not have been condemned to commit such a sin.

The case presented to us, was about Bernie Miller, a 26 year old man, who stabbed Troy Counts, a 27 year old man, after a game of poker. The defendant admitted to stabbing the victim twice but he was arguing the reason for the stabbing was legitimate under self-defense. After the arguments were done in the courtroom, we were sent into separate rooms to deliberate and to come up with a verdict for the crime. In my group, we decided to start off by reading the jury instructions page by page. We talked about whether there was enough proof to show malicious intent behind the stabbings. After a brief discussion, we agreed that we had doubts whether the stabbings were done with malice. Our conflict came when deciding between the meanings of unlawful wounding and self-defense.

As the ship started to sink, men barely managed to get into a lifeboat and by the time they were trying to save their lives, all of supplies of water and food were gone. Professor Teuber clarifies it, saying: “Unfortunately, the emergency supply of water that they had hastily thrown overboard next to the dinghy was swept away by the waves” (people.brandeis.edu). Since Teuber acknowledged that Dudley was the captain of the ship, it might also be the reason of why all decisions were made by Dudley. He might have felt himself responsible for men’s life and tried to save as much as he could, by sacrificing one. One of the details Teuber mentioned was that the rest of seamen were rescued by a German boat, called “Montezuma”, which was heading home from South America. As soon as they delivered men to Falmouth and started questioning them, it was clear that they have committed a crime. However, Brook’s name wasn’t mentioned as one of the prisoners throughout the story. And Teuber reveals the reason, saying:”The upright Dudley immediately insisted that he was the ringleader and that Brooks was completely innocent” (people.brandeis.edu). So that’s why Brooks played as a prosecution’s witness. The most remarkable situation in this case, was the peace between Dudley and the Richard’s brother Daniel Parker. He even came to court and shook Dudley’s hand. By the way, the initials C.J stand for Chief Justice Lord Coleridge who refused to recognize the prisoners’ case as necessity

Conspiracy to commit murder is one of the most difficult things to prove without a reasonable doubt and because the prosecution was aware that the case for murder against the former Sheriff, Dorsey was based upon a conspiracy charge the course of action for the prosecution was relatively clear. They had to somehow convince a jury that Dorsey had recruited the four other men, Patrick Cuffy, Paul Skyers, Melvin Walker and David Ramsey with the express intent of killing Derwin Brown. The reason that these types of murder charges are fundamentally difficult to prosecute lies in the fact that if the recruiter/master mind behind the event is ultimately successful on the first attempt to obtain an assassin, there rarely anyone, other than the actual killer(s) to testify that the mastermind in fact ordered and also likely made some sort of compensation for the act on the part of the assassin(s). In this case the prosecution proved to this jury using the testimony of, Patrick Cuffy, Paul Skyers, two of the admitted assassins, on immunity deals to provide evidence against Dorsey. The ethical dilemma is then the immunity deals offered to Cuffy and Skyers. The dilemma is fascinating as these sorts of immunity deals, in the case of murder are relatively rare, as most people feel that the actual doer of the crime, is as guilty or more guilty than the mastermind behind it, as that individual(s) has the ultimate decision making as to whether the crime